SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 180206. February 4, 2009.]

THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF BAGUIO CITY, represented by

REINALDO BAUTISTA, JR., City Mayor; THE ANTI-SQUATTING
COMMITTEE, represented by ATTY. MELCHOR CARLOS R.
RAGANES, CITY BUILDINGS and ARCHITECTURE o ce, represented
by OSCAR FLORES; and PUBLIC ORDER and SAFETY OFFICE,
Represented by EMMANUEL REYES , petitioners, vs . ATTY. BRAIN
MASWENG, Regional O cer-National Commission on Indigenous
People-CAR, ELVIN GUMANGAN, NARCISO BASATAN and LAZARO
BAWAS , respondents.

DECISION

TINGA , J : p

Petitioners, the City Government of Baguio City, represented by its Mayor,

Reinaldo Bautista, Jr., the Anti-Squatting Committee, represented by Atty. Melchor
Carlos R. Rabanes; the City Buildings and Architecture O ce, represented by Oscar
Flores; and the Public Order and Safety O ce, represented by Emmanuel Reyes and
later substituted by Gregorio Deligero, assail the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in
CA G.R. SP No. 96895, dated April 16, 2007, and its Resolution 2 dated September 11,
2007, which a rmed the injunctive writ issued by the National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) against the demolition orders of petitioners. cSITDa

The following undisputed facts are culled from the assailed Decision:
The case stemmed from the three (3) Demolition Orders issued by the City
Mayor of Baguio City, Braulio D. Yaranon, ordering the demolition of the illegal
structures constructed by Lazaro Bawas, Alexander Ampaguey, Sr. and a certain
Mr. Basatan on a portion of the Busol Watershed Reservation located at Aurora
Hill, Baguio City, without the required building permits and in violation of Section
69 of Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended, Presidential Decree No. 1096 and
Republic Act No. 7279.

Pursuant thereto, the corresponding demolition advices dated September

19, 2006 were issued informing the occupants thereon of the intended demolition
of the erected structures on October 17 to 20, 2006. Consequently, Elvin
Gumangan, Narciso Basatan and Lazaro Bawas (hereinafter private respondents)
led a petition for injunction with prayer for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction against the O ce of the
City Mayor of Baguio City through its Acting City Mayor, Reynaldo Bautista, the
City Building and Architecture O ce, the Anti-Squatting Task Force, and the
Public Order and Safety Division, among others, (collectively called petitioners)
before the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, Cordillera Administrative
Region (NCIP-CAR), Regional Hearing O ce, La Trinidad, Benguet, docketed as
Case No. 31-CAR-06.

In their petition, private respondents basically claimed that the lands where
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 their residential houses stand are their ancestral lands which they have been
occupying and possessing openly and continuously since time immemorial; that
their ownership thereof have been expressly recognized in Proclamation No. 15
dated April 27, 1922 and recommended by the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) for exclusion from the coverage of the Busol Forest
Reserve. They, thus, contended that the demolition of their residential houses is a
violation of their right of possession and ownership of ancestral lands accorded
by the Constitution and the law, perforce, must be restrained.
IEHDAT

On October 16 and 19, 2006, Regional Hearing O cer Atty. Brain S.

Masweng of the NCIP issued the two (2) assailed temporary restraining orders
(TRO) directing the petitioners and all persons acting for and in their behalf to
refrain from enforcing Demolition Advice dated September 18, 2006; Demolition
Order dated September 19, 2006; Demolition Order No. 25, Series of 2004;
Demolition Order No. 33, Series of 2005; and Demolition Order No. 28, Series of
2004, for a total period of twenty (20) days.

Subsequently, the NCIP issued the other assailed Resolution dated

November 10, 2006 granting the private respondents' application for preliminary
injunction subject to the posting of an injunctive bond each in the amount of
P10,000.00. 3

Acting on the petition for certiorari led by petitioners, 4 the Court of Appeals
upheld the jurisdiction of the NCIP over the action led by private respondents and
a rmed the temporary restraining orders dated October 16 5 and 19, 2006, 6 and the
Resolution dated November 10, 2006, 7 granting the application for a writ of preliminary
injunction, issued by the NCIP. The appellate court also ruled that Baguio City is not
exempt from the coverage of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA).
Petitioners assert that the NCIP has no jurisdiction to hear and decide main
actions for injunction such as the one led by private respondents. They claim that the
NCIP has the authority to issue temporary restraining orders and writs of preliminary
injunction only as auxiliary remedies to cases pending before it.
Further, the IPRA provides that Baguio City shall be governed by its Charter. Thus,
private respondents cannot claim their alleged ancestral lands under the provisions of
the IPRA. EScAID

Petitioners contend that private respondents are not entitled to the protection of
an injunctive writ because they encroached upon the Busol Forest Reservation and built
structures thereon without the requisite permit. Moreover, this Court, in Heirs of
Gumangan v. Court of Appeals, 8 had already declared that the Busol Forest
Reservation is inalienable and possession thereof, no matter how long, cannot convert
the same into private property. Even assuming that private respondents have a pending
application for ancestral land claim, their right is at best contingent and cannot come
under the protective mantle of injunction.
Petitioners also claim that the Busol Forest Reservation is exempt from ancestral
claims as it is needed for public welfare. It is allegedly one of the few remaining forests
in Baguio City and is the city's main watershed.
Finally, petitioners contend that the demolition orders were issued pursuant to
the police power of the local government.
In their Comment 9 dated March 1, 2007, private respondents defend the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 jurisdiction of the NCIP to take cognizance of and decide main actions for injunction
arguing that the IPRA does not state that the NCIP may only issue such writs of
injunction as auxiliary remedies. Private respondents also contend that the IPRA does
not exempt Baguio City from its coverage nor does it state that there are no ancestral
lands in Baguio City.
As members of the Ibaloi Indigenous Community native to Baguio City, private
respondents are treated as squatters despite the fact that they hold native title to their
ancestral land. The IPRA allegedly now recognizes ancestral lands held by native title as
never to have been public lands.
Private respondents aver that the Busol Forest Reservation is subject to
ancestral land claims. In fact, Proclamation No. 15 1 0 dated April 27, 1922, which
declared the area a forest reserve, allegedly did not nullify the vested rights of private
respondents over their ancestral lands and even identi ed the claimants of the
particular portions within the forest reserve. This claim of ownership is an exception to
the government's contention that the whole area is a forest reservation. TCaSAH

Lastly, private respondents assert that the power of the city mayor to order the
demolition of certain structures is not absolute. Regard should be taken of the fact that
private respondents cannot be issued building permits precisely because they do not
have paper titles over their ancestral lands, a requirement for the issuance of a building
permit under the National Building Code.
Petitioners' Reply to Comment 1 1 dated June 11, 2008 merely reiterates their
previous arguments.
We shall first dispose of the elemental issue of the NCIP's jurisdiction.
The NCIP is the primary government agency responsible for the formulation and
implementation of policies, plans and programs to protect and promote the rights and
well-being of indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) and the
recognition of their ancestral domains as well as their rights thereto. 1 2 In order to fully
effectuate its mandate, the NCIP is vested with jurisdiction over all claims and disputes
involving the rights of ICCs/IPs. The only condition precedent to the NCIP's assumption
of jurisdiction over such disputes is that the parties thereto shall have exhausted all
remedies provided under their customary laws and have obtained a certi cation from
the Council of Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt to settle the dispute that
the same has not been resolved. 1 3
In addition, NCIP Administrative Circular No. 1-03 dated April 9, 2003, known as
the Rules on Pleadings, Practice and Procedure Before the NCIP, reiterates the
jurisdiction of the NCIP over claims and disputes involving ancestral lands and
enumerates the actions that may be brought before the commission. Sec. 5, Rule III
thereof provides:
Sec. 5. Jurisdiction of the NCIP. — The NCIP through its Regional
Hearing O ces shall exercise jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving
rights of ICCs/IPs and all cases pertaining to the implementation, enforcement,
and interpretation of R.A. 8371, including but not limited to the following:
(1) Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Regional Hearing Office (RHO):
a. Cases involving disputes and controversies over ancestral
lands/domains of ICCs/IPs;
b. Cases involving violations of the requirement of free and prior and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 informed consent of ICCs/IPs; ASEIDH

c. Actions for enforcement of decisions of ICCs/IPs involving

violations of customary laws or desecration of ceremonial sites,
sacred places, or rituals;

d. Actions for redemption/reconveyance under Section 8(b) of R.A.

8371; and

e. Such other cases analogous to the foregoing.

(2) Original Jurisdiction of the Regional Hearing Officer:
a. Cases affecting property rights, claims of ownership, hereditary
succession, and settlement of land disputes, between and among
ICCs/IPs that have not been settled under customary laws; and

b. Actions for damages arising out of any violation of Republic Act No.
8371.

(3) Exclusive and Original Jurisdiction of the Commission:

a. Petition for cancellation of Certi cate of Ancestral Domain
Titles/Certi cate of Ancestral Land Titles (CADTs/CALTs) alleged
to have been fraudulently acquired by, and issued to, any person or
community as provided for under Section 54 of R.A. 8371. Provided
that such action is led within one (1) year from the date of
registration.

In order to determine whether the NCIP has jurisdiction over the dispute in
accordance with the foregoing provisions, it is necessary to resolve, on the basis of the
allegations in their petition, whether private respondents are members of ICCs/IPs. In
their petition 1 4 led before the NCIP, private respondents, members of the Ibaloi tribe
who rst settled in Baguio City, were asserting ownership of portions of the Busol
Forest Reservation which they claim to be their ancestral lands. Correctly denominated
as a petition for injunction as it sought to prevent the enforcement of the demolition
orders issued by the City Mayor, the petition traced private respondents' ancestry to
Molintas and Gumangan and asserted their possession, occupation and utilization of
their ancestral lands. The petition also alleged that private respondents' claim over
these lands had been recognized by Proclamation No. 15 which mentions the names of
Molintas and Gumangan as having claims over portions of the Busol Forest
Reservation. 1 5 aHTcDA

Clearly then, the allegations in the petition, which axiomatically determine the
nature of the action and the jurisdiction of a particular tribunal, 1 6 squarely qualify it as a
"dispute(s) or controversy(s) over ancestral lands/domains of ICCs/IPs" within the
original and exclusive jurisdiction of the NCIP-RHO.
The IPRA, furthermore, endows the NCIP with the power to issue temporary
restraining orders and writs of injunction. Sec. 69 thereof states:
Sec. 69. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the NCIP. — The NCIP shall have the
power and authority:

a) To promulgate rules and regulations governing the hearing and

disposition of cases led before it as well as those pertaining to its internal
functions and such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 purposes of this Act;
b) To administer oaths, summon the parties to a controversy, issue
subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses or the production
of such books, papers, contracts, records, agreements, and other document of
similar nature as may be material to a just determination of the matter under
investigation or hearing conducted in pursuance of this Act;
c) To hold any person in contempt, directly or indirectly, and impose
appropriate penalties therefor; and
d) To enjoin any or all acts involving or arising from any case
pending before it which, if not restrained forthwith, may cause grave or
irreparable damage to any of the parties to the case or seriously affect
social or economic activity. [Emphasis supplied]

NCIP Administrative Circular No. 1-03 echoes the above-quoted provision in Sec.
82, Rule XV, which provides: TDAcCa

Sec. 82. Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order . — A

writ of preliminary injunction or restraining order may be granted by the
Commission pursuant to the provisions of Sections 59 and 69 of R.A. [No.] 8371
when it is established, on the basis of sworn allegations in a petition, that the acts
complained of involving or arising from any case, if not restrained forthwith, may
cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to any of the parties, or seriously
affect social or economic activity. This power may also be exercised by RHOs in
cases pending before them in order to preserve the rights of the parties.

As can be gleaned from the foregoing provisions, the NCIP may issue temporary
restraining orders and writs of injunction without any prohibition against the issuance
of the writ when the main action is for injunction. The power to issue temporary
restraining orders or writs of injunction allows parties to a dispute over which the NCIP
has jurisdiction to seek relief against any action which may cause them grave or
irreparable damage or injury. In this case, the Regional Hearing O cer issued the
injunctive writ because its jurisdiction was called upon to protect and preserve the
rights of private respondents who are undoubtedly members of ICCs/IPs.
Parenthetically, in order to reinforce the powers of the NCIP, the IPRA even
provides that no restraining order or preliminary injunction may be issued by any
inferior court against the NCIP in any case, dispute or controversy arising from or
necessary to the interpretation of the IPRA and other laws relating to ICCs/IPs and
ancestral domains. 1 7
Petitioners argue that Baguio City is exempt from the provisions of the IPRA, and
necessarily the jurisdiction of the NCIP, by virtue of Sec. 78 thereof, which states:
SEC. 78. Special Provision. — The City of Baguio shall remain to be
governed by its Charter and all lands proclaimed as part of its townsite
reservation shall remain as such until otherwise reclassi ed by appropriate
legislation: Provided, That prior land rights and titles recognized and/or
acquired through any judicial, administrative or other processes before
the effectivity of this Act shall remain valid : Provided, further, That this
provision shall not apply to any territory which becomes part of the City of Baguio
after the effectivity of this Act. [Emphasis supplied]aATHES

The foregoing provision indeed states that Baguio City is governed by its own
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 charter. Its exemption from the IPRA, however, cannot ipso facto be deduced because
the law concedes the validity of prior land rights recognized or acquired through any
process before its effectivity. The IPRA demands that the city's charter respect the
validity of these recognized land rights and titles.
The crucial question to be asked then is whether private respondents' ancestral
land claim was indeed recognized by Proclamation No. 15, in which case, their right
thereto may be protected by an injunctive writ. After all, before a writ of preliminary
injunction may be issued, petitioners must show that there exists a right to be
protected and that the acts against which injunction is directed are violative of said
right. 1 8
Proclamation No. 15, however, does not appear to be a de nitive recognition of
private respondents' ancestral land claim. The proclamation merely identi es the
Molintas and Gumangan families, the predecessors-in-interest of private respondents,
as claimants of a portion of the Busol Forest Reservation but does not acknowledge
vested rights over the same. In fact, Proclamation No. 15 explicitly withdraws the Busol
Forest Reservation from sale or settlement. It provides:
Pursuant to the provisions of section eighteen hundred and twenty-six of
Act Numbered Twenty-seven Hundred and eleven[,] I hereby establish the Busol
Forest Reservation to be administered by the Bureau of Forestry for the purpose
of conserving and protecting water and timber, the protection of the water supply
being of primary importance and all other uses of the forest are to be
subordinated to that purpose. I therefore withdraw from sale or settlement the
following described parcels of the public domain situated in the Township of La
Trinidad, City of Baguio, Mountain Province, Island of Luzon, to wit:

The fact remains, too, that the Busol Forest Reservation was declared by the
Court as inalienable in Heirs of Gumangan v. Court of Appeals . 1 9 The declaration of the
Busol Forest Reservation as such precludes its conversion into private property.
Relatedly, the courts are not endowed with jurisdictional competence to adjudicate
forest lands.
All told, although the NCIP has the authority to issue temporary restraining
orders and writs of injunction, we are not convinced that private respondents are
entitled to the relief granted by the Commission.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 96895 dated April 16, 2007 and its Resolution dated
September 11, 2007 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Case No. 31-CAR-06 entitled, Elvin
Gumangan, Narciso Basatan and Lazaro Bawas v. O ce of the City Mayor of Baguio
City, et al. is DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs. cTESIa

SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, Carpio-Morales, Velasco, Jr. and Brion, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 30-37; Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe and concurred in
by Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Lucas P. Bersamin. aAcHCT

2. Id. at 39-40.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 3. Id. at 31-35.
4. CA rollo, pp. 2-23.
5. Id. at 24-26.
6. Id. at 27-33. TESICD

7. Id. at 34-38.
8. G.R. Nos. 75672 and 75673, April 19, 1989, 172 SCRA 563.

9. Rollo, pp. 186-203.

10. CA rollo, pp. 85-87.
11. Rollo, pp. 228-233.
12. REP. ACT NO. 8371 (1997), Sec. 3(k) and Sec. 38.

13. REP. ACT NO. 8371 (1997), Sec. 66.

14. CA rollo, pp. 78-84.
15. Id. at 86-87.
16. Abacus Securities Corporation v. Ampil, G.R. No. 160016, February 27, 2006, 483 SCRA
315; Ballesteros v. Abion, G.R. No. 143361, February 9, 2006; 482 SCRA 23.
17. REP. ACT NO. 8371 (1997), Sec. 70.
18. Viray v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92481, November 9, 1990, 191 SCRA 308. ISHaCD

19. Supra note 8.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com